Legal Expert: 'Asset Recovery' More Fitting Than 'Asset Seizure' for Indonesia Bill

A prominent legal scholar has proposed renaming Indonesia's draft Asset Seizure Bill to "Asset Recovery." Yehezkiel Minggus Tiranda, a law professor at Sultan Agung Islamic University in Semarang and a prospective Supreme Court Justice, argued that "asset recovery" better reflects the bill's restorative goals compared to "asset seizure."

“

If I refer to the previous RDPU proposal, why not asset recovery? Why must it be asset seizure? I prefer that terminology (asset recovery).

While "asset seizure" is a more assertive legal term, Tiranda noted it could be perceived as repressive by the public. He suggested "asset recovery" is more humane. Legally, "asset seizure" focuses on the perpetrator, whereas "asset recovery" emphasizes the interests of victims, including the state.

Tiranda also pointed to international cooperation, noting that the term "asset recovery" in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) aligns more closely with the proposed Indonesian concept than "asset seizure." He suggested adopting the UNCAC terminology could facilitate international collaboration.

“

From the public's perspective, the term seizure is repressive. But if you use the term recovery, it is indeed more humane.

Beyond terminology, Tiranda highlighted the critical importance of the transitional and concluding provisions in the bill. He explained that approximately 80% of new or amended laws become subject to constitutional court disputes due to issues with transitional clauses. Therefore, careful drafting of these sections is crucial for a smooth implementation of the new regulations.

“

If we use the term seizure, this is indeed the American model. But if the UNCAC term is asset recovery. We just choose which one makes international cooperation easier.

He acknowledged the sensitivity surrounding the bill's discussion, understanding the diverse interests and psychological pressures within the House of Representatives. Tiranda stressed the need for careful consideration and a balanced approach in advancing the legislation.

“

Almost 80 percent of new laws or amendments to laws become objects of dispute in the Constitutional Court because of transitional provisions.